Formation and evolution of compact binaries in globular clusters â II. Binaries with neutron stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the second of a series, we study the stellar dynamical and evolutionary processes leading to the formation of compact binaries containing neutron stars (NSs) in dense globular clusters. For this study, 70 dense clusters were simulated independently, with a total stellar mass ∼2 × 107M⊙, exceeding the total mass of all dense globular clusters in our Galaxy. We find that, in order to reproduce the empirically derived formation rate of low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs), we must assume that NSs can be formed via electron-capture supernovae with typical natal kicks smaller than in core-collapse supernovae. Our results explain the observed dependence of the number of LMXBs on ‘collision number’ as well as the large scatter observed between different globular clusters. We predict that the number of quiescent LMXBs in different clusters should not have a strong metallicity dependence. We compare the results obtained from our simulations with the observed population of millisecond pulsars (MSPs). We find that in our cluster model the following mass-gaining events create populations of MSPs that do not match the observations (either they are inconsistent with the observed LMXB production rates, or the inferred binary periods or companion masses are not observed among radio bMSPs): (i) accretion during a common-envelope event with a NS formed through electron-capture supernovae (ECSNe), and (ii) mass transfer (MT) from a white dwarf donor. Some processes lead only to a mild recycling – physical collisions or MT in a post-accretion-induced collapse system. In addition, for MSPs, we distinguish low magnetic field (long-lived) and high magnetic field (short-lived) populations, where in the latter NSs are formed as a result of accretion-induced collapse or merger-induced collapse. With this distinction and by considering only those mass-gaining events that appear to lead to NS recycling, we obtain good agreement of our models with the numbers and characteristics of observed MSPs in 47 Tuc and Terzan 5, as well as with the cumulative statistics for MSPs detected in globular clusters of different dynamical properties. We find that significant production of merging double NSs potentially detectable as short γ-ray bursts occurs only in very dense, most likely core-collapsed clusters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".